OK, I'll say it: Re: [at-l] Now ---- havingbeen.....

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

At 10:21 PM 4/2/02 -0500, Bob C. wrote:
>...clip...How do you propose that we segregate those who seek to continue 
>the "trail
>  advocacy" that somehow managed to create this marvelous trail, from 
> those not
>  interested in such matters? It's the nature of advocacy to seek to influence
>  the broadest public audience.

Then this ain't it.  The list has, what?  500 members, many of whom have 
delivery disabled (look at the list and note how many are in 
italics).  There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 BILLION people in 
the US now so this list constitutes 1 five millionth of the population.  I 
don't call that a broad audience.

>  I can't think of anything less useful then to spend one's time preaching 
> to the
>  converted. ...clip...

This reveals a *chronic* misunderstanding of AT-L.  It is not that we are 
not trail advocates or even indifferent but (for the umpteenth time) that 
is not the purpose or focus of the list.  In short, you *are* preaching to 
the converted.  Granted there are differences of opinion on methodology and 
relative importance of individual issues but NO ONE here has *ever* argued 
that the trail should not be protected and many (if not most of us) are 
active in our own way.

>  Let's have a quiz. Why is Weary here?
>...clip...
>  e.  Because since the death of ATML, this is the largest, most dedicated and
>most friendly of the Internet trail forums.

Since?  It always was in my experience and I was on both lists.

Believe it or not Weary, I like you and I think you have a lot to offer 
AT-L for a guy who wears cotton ;-) but you (and RnR) really need to get 
over the notion that we are somehow a danger to the AT because we don't 
want to endlessly discuss on and off trail politics.

sAunTerer